Slate modleling mic?

[bluebird]

A really good engineer and the studio I work at told me he was thinking of getting one of these. Told me a couple of his peers shot them out against the real thing (U47, 251,C800) and couldn't tell the difference. I plain old don't want to believe you can simulate a classic mic with a cheap Chinese condenser and a plugin. To be fair I don't know what the the actual mic is because there's no info on that. 
Seems the actual mic (and mic pre) without the plugins would just have to be the best mic in the world? for $1000?

http://www.slatedigital.com/products/welcome-to-the-future-of-microphones/

Well maybe now there will be so many vintage mics being sold on eBay I can pick up a U47 for $500!

 

[chefducuisine]

This falls into the same category as with room correction software... It will get you in the the direction but it will never replace a proper room.

The modeling mic might have a similar behavior on axis. But what about off axis response???
Next is the capsule: They can emulate the frequency response. But what about the phase and other flaws each individual capsule design has?
Don't forget tolerances - How does the algorithm react to tolerances in the capsule, head amp, mic pre, etc.

You won't see a real U47 drop in price because of this product.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

The concept of "virtual microphones" is not new. Roland started it in their portastudios, then Autotune made a Mic Modeller, and now everybody and their little sister makes plug-ins that turn your smartphone's mic into a U47, or C12, or (your favorite $$$ vintage mic).
The limitations of the concept are well-known. The frequency response can be equalized, although it is often so for a predetermined position of the source, and obviously, the directivity pattern is that of the "donor" mic. No way you can turn your Samson USB mic into a U48, an RCA44, or an Earthwork QTC. Proximity effect will also be unchanged.
I don't know any decent sound engineer that uses such a product, unless for special effects.

 

[bluebird]

I don't know any decent sound engineer that uses such a product, unless for special effects.

Well That's just it. usually I don't pay attention to these types of things for all the above reasons, but some of the engineers that are talking about it in high regards are way above "decent". I know some of them...  That's why its bothering me.

Well I suppose only time will tell. I'm gonna assume 4 of them over a string section A/B'ed with four U47's probably won't produce the same results as just one with a singer 2" from it. I'm not sure how they were doing the A/B tests.

 

[pucho812]

Ah yes the slate mic....

I know way to much of the backstory and such, but from the looks of things

797 mic....  the rest is all software.

Now how does the software know on axis vs off axis responses of any mic then emulates it to other mics?

I would go all the way down the rabbit hole except I do not wish to get the innocent in trouble.

So I will say I recently heard it a couple of weeks ago over at gear fest. Switching between each emulation, they all sounded different. They all were very pronounced so you knew that, oh yeah, it's a different mic.

I have been invited to the slate compound to hear the mic and A/B. I have yet to find time in my schedule to go, and I also do not wanted to be filmed like Señor slate wants, I am willing to do an A/B and would even admit if I could not tell the difference but I draw the line at being on camera.

 

[kambo]

no need to go crazy criticism about the hard work...
at least there r not adding white noise and claim its analog. ( something starting with W_s
where most of u paid ton  of money for a stupid button on plug in!

i got banned because i was doing "NULL" with most expensive EQ vs cubase EQ!

 

[mattiasNYC]

I can actually see the point in this product. For not that much money (?) you get access to the general type of sound of some classic mics. 

A while back Slate posted some crappy recordings on Gearslutz and invited everyone to tell the difference. Well, it turned out that about 4-5 people were able to separate the two consistently, but only when there was sufficient low end recorded. So for the male voice we could tell apart the two mics, but not with a female voice.  So the caveats were that the main audible difference appeared to be in the lower register, and that the recording was anything but 'clean'. The voice was recorded at a show, so a lot of background noise.

Now,  what turned me off from the product - if I may - was the approach to this by Steven. I made the point that I could hear the difference and that it would certainly be compounded when stacking multiple tracks with the same model, but also that it was so minor it could easily be solved using an EQ. Rather than take that compliment it turned into a long argument in which he essentially denied there was difference because we couldn't tell the difference on the female voice, and also denied that having a very busy signal was inappropriate as a comparison (as opposed to recording for example a cello in a studio). To me the lack of logic in his arguments along with the attitude just completely turned me off.

It's really too bad because it did at the time seem like a promising product.

 

[pucho812]

no need to go crazy criticism about the hard work...
at least there r not adding white noise and claim its analog. ( something starting with W_s
where most of u paid ton  of money for a stupid button on plug in!

i got banned because i was doing "NULL" with most expensive EQ vs cubase EQ!

true but there is plenty to discuss on this mic because when you question the tech behind it you're met with it just works, or we did it.  They have no idea and have said things over and over which are wrong. For example they say things like the dsp does not have filters. Everything about DSP is based around filters. A mic in itself is a filter or you'll get things like the mic is distortion free. Distortion free on a mic is a neat trick, not even neumann was able to get that to happen.

 

[fazer]

Steven can be hard to take sometimes with his attitude but he is always coming out with something new.  For me its how the singer/performance is effected by the mic more so than me as an engineer.  The right microphone makes the performer get intoxicated with the sound of  there voice or instrument and leads them to perform better.  If it does that then I don't care what the mic is with or without software.  I have a 251 and love that mic on vocals and acoustic guitars but its really about how artist react to the sounds in their headphones that's impressive. 

 

[mattiasNYC]

I think that's a good point fazer, and as I said I can see the point in the product. If it sounds good and fits the music and makes the musician perform better then it is good.

 

[bluebird]

I agree as well, but its the marketing that gets under my skin. The fact that they are advertising that well respected engineers can't tell the difference is pretty misleading. I actually think the product is cool and its a very fair price for what you get.

But we know what kind of engineering went into those old mics especially when it came to capsule and transformer technology. We do a lot of orchestras and have a large collection of vintage microphones. There is a sound that is pretty majestic and open that I doubt can be emulated with a bunch of these modeling mics.

I spent may years messing around with DIY mics. I'd spend days switching out transformers and blocking caps and capsules. I'd have 30 tracks in pro tools with the same acoustic guitar riff or vocal line... Some of you know what I'm talking about. At the end of the day, a lot of the time I would be confused as to what sounded better than what.  Then at work I would put on some headphones and say hello into a real U47 and cry.

Who knows maybe this will be a thing now. Remember the Variax modeling guitar by Line 6? Way back in the day I was actually working for Line 6 when that was being developed. It was really impressive (still is) and I thought it was going to be a game changer. It wasn't

Pucho, next time we run into each other your gonna spill the beans!

 

 

[helterbelter]

Surely it's mainly marketing, in which Slate does a really "good" job.
But I also noticed in his Youtube clips that he uses misleading tricks to show how "fantastic" his plugins are. (I do find that entertaining, but that's beside the point).

That doesn't mean that his plugins aren't very nice, very useable plugins. Fabrice Gabriel, the guy behind the software, he truly is a genius. Steven Slate is the commercial marketing guy.

I have the VCC (virtual console collection), and the V.... eeh, that 500 style rackplugin.  (..... : Virtual Mix Rack).
The VCC : Does it replace the need for a console entirely ? No, it doesn't, but it comes closer to the real deal than any summing  plugin I've tried before. I have an analog console, so I don't use this VCC, but it's very decent.
The VMR : It's a great tool imho. Models of hardware ? Maybe, but I prefer to see them as very capable plugin eq's/compressors/exciters. The Reviver is the best exciterplugin I tried so far. The Bomber and the Custom EQ didn't impress me enough to purchase them, but the Eiosis and the standard FG plugins are great and money well spent.

The VMS : I'm very curious how it will perform. real deal or not, if it's good  and sounds great- I'll serious consider it buying. And be fair : 95% of the real deal is interesting enough.